Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
76

The argument "the number of full nodes decreased as the blocks got bigger" was always total Blockstream FUD.

29 comments
72% Upvoted
What are your thoughts? Log in or Sign uplog insign up
level 1

He goes on to say "People like Roger lacked the technical and historical knowledge to combat this sophisticated lie." Nah, I think they lacked the forum access to combat this lie since people were censoring Roger and people like him right and left.

level 2
21 points · 28 days ago

It almost sounds like part of him is proud of the deception. "Check out how we were able to fool these techno-illiterates, lol"

Fuck that guy. Blaming Roger, of all people, for the technical illiteracy of the useful idiots who were allowed to run wild in /r/bitcoin thanks to the infamous censorship campaign. This shit honestly makes my blood boil.

level 3
level 1
25 points · 28 days ago

Of course. It was all part of the social manipulation to prevent on-chain scaling.

level 2
Redditor for less than 60 days8 points · 28 days ago

exactly!!

level 1

Below this tweet, it is explained why this was not a Blockstream lie, to which Cobra replies, ‘good point’.

Keep reading below what you want to hear. Don’t stop just because it fits your views.

level 2

This is actually a pattern with Cobra, makes it hard to believe anything she says.

level 3
ChronosCrypto - Bitcoin Vlogger2 points · 28 days ago

"she" :)

level 2

Can you provide a link to it? I can’t find it.

level 3

Yeah it can get lost. That is the annoying thing about Twitter.

https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1020404644235882496?s=20

level 4

Thanks. I don't see how that makes the narrative of bigger blocks equals less nodes true.

level 1

Cobra 3 years late.

level 1
Redditor for less than 60 days3 points · 28 days ago

The linked tweet was tweeted by @CobraBitcoin on Jul 20, 2018 20:12:06 UTC (21 Retweets | 80 Favorites)


The argument "the number of full nodes decreased as the blocks got bigger" was always total Blockstream FUD. People like Roger lacked the technical and historical knowledge to combat this sophisticated lie. In truth, the number of full nodes has always been increasing.


• Beep boop I'm a bot • Find out more about me at /r/tweettranscriberbot/ •

level 1

Plenty of people knew, they just didn't care, because they didn't accept the false narrative of non mining nodes being critical infrastructure which should be subsidised to the extent that it compromises the entire purpose of the product.

Arguing about full node percentages and prevalence in general walks straight into that trap.

level 1
Bitcoin.org Co-Owner7 points · 28 days ago

Basically, all the historical evidence points to the number of full nodes increasing, in line with Bitcoin getting more popular and adoption. Even right now, we have nearly ~10K listening nodes, despite most blocks being over 1MB. The storage and bandwidth requirements to run a full node have increased, yet the number of reachable full nodes has increased 75%, over the last 730 days. We were told as resource demands increase, full nodes would fall, putting the security of the entire network at risk. This obviously hasn't happened, though the argument does make some sense if you increase resource demands without a corresponding increase in adoption and popularity.

level 2
8 points · 28 days ago

You forgot to mention that while storage and bandwidth and cpu requirements increased the cost of those resources decreased as technology improved over the years.

This is why it has not happened.

It can happen if you increase resource demands without correspondence to technology. It is not just market demand.

level 2

So do you support a blocksize limit increase on BTC-Legacy? Or do you think that ship has sailed, and big blockers should instead focus on Bitcoin-BCH?

level 2
4 points · 28 days ago

What a suprise! Its as if we've been saying thats wrong all along.....

level 2
Redditor for less than 60 days4 points · 28 days ago

Redditor /u/Cobra-Bitcoin has low karma in this subreddit.

level 3
Redditor for less than 60 days0 points · 28 days ago

Please remember not to upvote or downvote comments based on the user's karma value in any particular subreddit. Downvotes should only be used if the comment is something completely off-topic, and even if you disagree with the comment (or dislike the user who wrote it), please abide by reddiquette the best you possibly can.

Thank you, and have a great day!

level 2
Redditor for less than 6 months3 points · 27 days ago

Why are you trying to play both sides

level 2

Wtf, people have been saying this for years! And you're JUST now realising it??? Holy shit you're dense.

level 2

This is also what happened with Ethereum.

level 1

Yup.

level 1

some actually interesting input from cobra.. wow.

level 1

Do you have bch full node?

level 2
Original Poster2 points · 28 days ago

I do not, why?

level 1
1 point · 27 days ago

Some snakes do live under rocks. Glad you finally realized what we all said 3 years ago.

Community Details

213k

Subscribers

5.5k

Online

Welcome to /r/btc! Home of: Up to date Bitcoin discussions, News and Exclusive AMA (Ask Me Anything) interviews from top Bitcoin industry leaders, and more! Bitcoin is the *currency of the Internet*. A distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without the need for any central authority whatsoever.

Create Post
r/btc Rules
1.
Asking for votes
2.
No begging for bitcoin
3.
No Referral links or URL shortening services
4.
Scam/Malware
5.
Duplicate
6.
Abusive
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.